The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including May 21, 2014.

Apr 7 2014

The time to file respondents' briefs on the merits is extended to and including July 17, 2014.

May 13 2014

Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party, or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.

May 13 2014

Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for respondent Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association.

May 13 2014

Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent General Retirement System of the City of Detroit.

May 15 2014

Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent IndyMac MBS Inc.

May 20 2014

Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondents Credit Suisse Securities, Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc., Goldman Sachs & Co., and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC.

The parties are directed to file letter briefs addressing the following question: What should be the effect, if any, of the proposed settlement agreement now pending before the district court on the matter pending before this Court? The briefs, limited to 10 pages, are to be filed simultaneously with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before noon, Thursday, September 25, 2014.

Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. ComerThe Missouri Department of Natural Resources' express policy of denying grants to any applicant owned or controlled by a church, sect or other religious entity violated the rights of Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc., under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment by denying the church an otherwise available public benefit on account of its religious status.

Hernández v. Mesa(1) A Bivens remedy is not available when there are "special factors counselling hesitation in the absence of affirmative action by Congress," and the court recently clarified in Ziglar v. Abbasi what constitutes a special factor counselling hesitation; the court of appeals should consider how the reasoning and analysis in Ziglar bear on the question whether the parents of a victim shot by a U.S. Border Patrol agent may recover damages for his death; (2) It would be imprudent for the Supreme Court to decide Jesus Hernandez’s Fourth Amendment claim when, in light of the intervening guidance provided in Abbasi, doing so may be unnecessary to resolve this particular case; and (3) with respect to Hernandez’s Fifth Amendment claim, because it is undisputed that the victim's nationality and the extent of his ties to the United States were unknown to the agent at the time of the shooting, the en banc court of appeals erred in granting qualified immunity based on those facts.

Conference of September 25, 2017

Collins v. Virginia Whether the Fourth Amendment's automobile exception permits a police officer, uninvited and without a warrant, to enter private property, approach a house and search a vehicle parked a few feet from the house.

Butka v. Sessions Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit erred in this case by holding that it had no jurisdiction to review the denial of a motion to reopen by the Board of Immigration Appeals, where the review sought was limited to assessing the legal framework upon which the sua sponte request was made.

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra Whether the free speech clause or the free exercise clause of the First Amendment prohibits California from compelling licensed pro-life centers to post information on how to obtain a state-funded abortion and from compelling unlicensed pro-life centers to disseminate a disclaimer to clients on site and in any print and digital advertising.